The NIV , Has it Become the Bible to replace the KJV?

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It was my observation from early on that you were claiming superiority for the translation of the KJV, even beyond the textual basis for it. You have stated on numerous occasions that you do not claim inerrancy for the KJV. Yet you have yet to admit an error in it for modern usage and understanding.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I have yet to see, in this forum, a charge of error sustained against the KJV. Chris Temple did point out one oddity for which I gave the response "It is a puzzlement." If you would care to point out an error made by the translation committees in 1611, which can be shown to have been an error in 1611, I will gladly acknowledge it. I am aware of several odd choices, but I am not going to do your homework for you! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With regard to “letteth” and “prevent,” if someone read that today and applied modern understanding to it, would they be in error? I think you would certainly have to answer yes. If that is the case, then would you not have to admit that the KJV is at best misleading? Does not that make it in error for the modern reader since it does not communicate the intent of the passage?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You cannot lay such an error of understanding at the door of the translation committees. At the time they were working those words were correct. They did not have a crystal ball (as much as some KJV people may wish they did) so they could not foresee such changes in language. Language changes, but those changes do not invalidate the word choices made in 1611. If those word choices had been made last week, it would be different. But 1611 is not last week. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You say that no one you know of is arguing that “letteth” and “prevent” are the best choice of words today. Have you not read Alex Mullins, Trinity26, and others on this very board that would have to make that very claim based on what they have said?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As I don't have a crystal ball either, and neither do you, I can't really say what Mr. Mullins or Trinity26 would say in reference to the two words in question. They have not made any statements concerning those two words which I am aware of. If they suggest they are the best possible choices for early 21st century English speakers, I would have to respectfully disagree. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Surely are you familiar with Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, formerly Hyles (who would gladly use a modern version today), etc. who have made the exact claim that I have referenced.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I see your crystal ball is working over time, telling us what Mr. Hyles would do now that he is with the Lord! You don't know what Mr. Hyles is thinking right now, and it is a bit silly to try to enlist him on your side of the argument! And, although I have met Dr. Ruckman a couple of times, I disagree with much of what he teaches. I have never met Mrs. Ripplinger, but have read her book and find it to have been poorly researched and executed, and some of her conclusions are far from what I would conclude from the same evidence. However, I not only know Dr. Waite, but count him as a good and close friend. I know the stand he takes on the KJV and it is not as you suggest. He would be the first to say that many of the archaic words in the KJV could stand updating, and that someday the KJV will be superceded by another English version, if the Lord tarries. He just doesn't see any of the present offerings as being that version. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess the question is simply this. Do you believe that the KJV should be changed to reflect modern linguistic convention for the modern reader? Or do you believe that the KJV remains the best translation for the modern reader? (I am not there asking about textual preferences.) At what point would you say that we need a Bible in the common language of the day?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I regularly update the language of the KJV when I teach and preach, making known the modern equivalents of the archaic English words, but I also agree with Dr. Waite that, although there are some pretty good modern versions, they have not yet reached the stature necessary to replace the KJV. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>While we are on the topic of “errors,” what about Matt 23:24 where the KJV has “strain at a gnat” when the Greek text (take your pick) clearly means “strain out a gnat”? There are clearly two different meanings involved. Which one is right?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think it is the kind of nit picking that the KJVOs usually engage in. If you are going to pick at such silly little nits, is it not perfectly acceptable for them to do the same? Or do you have a double standard? What great theological truth is compromised by "strain at a gnat" vice "strain out a gnat?"

[ May 08, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Will]

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I have yet to see, in this forum, a charge of error sustained against the KJV. Chris Temple did point out one oddity for which I gave the response "It is a puzzlement." If you would care to point out an error made by the translation committees in 1611, which can be shown to have been an error in 1611, I will gladly acknowledge it. I am aware of several odd choices, but I am not going to do your homework for you!

Thomas,

I'm puzzled by this. You say that you aren't KJVO and that you don't believe that the KJV is inerrant, yet you continually make comments like this. What do you mean you are not going to do his homework for him? Aren't we here seeking the truth together? Isn't the only position any of us should be defending that of the truth of our God and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Shouldn't we be helping each other to find the truth?

By saying you aren't going to do someone's homework for them, aren't you saying you have truth you are keeping from a fellow Christian?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Once, again, my question is, if a translation does not accurately communicate the meaning of Scripture in the language of the reader, and in fact, communicates the very opposite of the meaning, is that translation not in error for the modern reader (notice I stipulate the modern reader, not the 17th century reader)? Certainly we all admit that changing times and linguistic conventions requires updating our own communication. For instance, to say “I am gay” would have a clear meaning in today’s society. Should I then describe my personal joy as “gay”? Of course not. The fact that is would have been right one hundred years ago does not justify its incorrect usage today.

How do you say the words mean something completely opposite (let vs. prevent) of the parent language but still are not in error? That seems inconceivable to me. If your daughter asked to go to the mall and you, not wanting her to, said “I will let you,” and she went, would she be wrong? Of course. That is my point. If it does not accurately communicate the meaning in the receptor language, then I would think we have to say it is in error. To me, this seems to go past “not the best” to approach “completely misleading.”

As for the crystal ball, I have no crystal ball. I am sure you were jesting, just as I was about Hyles. I have however the ability to read what people say and based on what the names I have mentioned have said on this forum, that is what they believe. They have not addressed those particular words; I am drawing conclusions from their other statements which if necessary we can go back and cite. Now if I have misrepresented them, let them speak up and explain their words. As for Ruckman, Riplinger, Hyles, they have repeatedly and erroneously claimed perfection, even advanced revelation, for the KJV. As for Waite, I know he has some “defined KJV” or some such thing. However, in hearing and reading him, I have never come away with the understanding that he would question the KJV text. If you say so, then so be it. I will defer to your knowledge of him.

Now on to the text itself, why is Matt 23:24 nit picking (straining at a gnat???) when it is a clear issue of translation. Did the word “diulidzo” ever mean “strain at”? I have yet to find any lexical resource that even suggests “strain at.” If you know of a lexical source that that supports the KJV, I would like to know what it is. BAGD cites the New OED as giving an archaic usage but says that KJV is a misprint. Granted it is not a doctrinal error, but if it does not mean “strain at” then why is it not an error? Are errors limited to doctrinal issues only? As for the double standard, I am perfectly willing to say there are errors of translation in the MVs. I am addressing those who say that there are no errors in the KJV. I am illustrating their double standard.

Let me list a sampling of other passages that I would like to see you address.

Rev 17:8 – “and yet is” has no MS support. Is it an error? (No less than Hills said it was “Believing Bible Study,” p. 83).
Rev 16:5 – “shalt be” should be “holy one.” Is it an error? (See again Hills).
Rom 7:6 – “that being dead” should modify “we,” not “the law.” Is it an error? (See again Hills who admits this to be an error.)
Acts 9:6 – A significant portion of this verse, as you are surely aware of, has no MS support. Is it an error?
Heb 10:23 – elpis is translated as “faith” something that is clearly wrong and something that the KJV translators never did anywhere beside this verse. Is it an error?

Perhaps again you consider this nitpicking. But it seems to me they are either right representations of the text or they are not. I am curious as to which you think they are.

 

[DocCas]

Three points:

1. I have already answered your questions in paragraphs 1-4.

2. The last paragraph belongs under the "Errors" topic. This topic is to discuss the NIV and its likelyhood of replacing/having already replaced the KJV.

3. The rule is we post one verse at a time and deal with it, rather than a whole list of them. This keeps the posts short and avoids using excessive band width.

Thomas Cassidy
Moderator

 

[Pastor Larry]

Thomas,

I suppose that I will have to be satisfied with the answer that you have apparently given to my question in par. 1-4. It seems to me to be an ambivalent answer because it appears that you are saying that it is not an error to mislead a reader as to what the sense of the passage is. I find it inconceivable that you honestly believe that. But I must take your word for it. It seems to me we should strive to have the best possible choice of words and if the KJV does not have that then it is not the best translation. I do not argue that any translation is the single best. There are things that I like in different ones.

As for the verses I listed, you may answer them wherever and however you would like. Anyway you do it is fine with me and I am sure I will find them. I listed them here simply because it was where the current discussion was going on and I listed them together because they all address the issue of the superiority of the KJV vs. the MVs of which, whether for better or worse, the NIV is clearly the king.

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
It seems to me to be an ambivalent answer because it appears that you are saying that it is not an error to mislead a reader as to what the sense of the passage is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>One last time. The KJV translation committees did NOT mislead the readers via their word choices in 1611. To make such a rediculous charge is pure slander! At the time those words were chosen they were perfectly viable translations of the Greek words in question. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I find it inconceivable that you honestly believe that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is because I DON'T believe any such nonsense! To accuse men dead for almost 4 centuries of deception on the basis of 20th century language changes is bordering on the insane. If you would care to continue this discussion, move it to the "errors" topic.

 

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I have yet to see, in this forum, a charge of error sustained against the KJV. Chris Temple did point out one oddity for which I gave the response "It is a puzzlement." If you would care to point out an error made by the translation committees in 1611, which can be shown to have been an error in 1611, I will gladly acknowledge it. I am aware of several odd choices, but I am not going to do your homework for you!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

You never adequately defended the KJV's translation of teknon in Mark 13:12. Instead you simply dismissed me with a sarcastic remark about how I am near "omniscience."

To recap, the Greek term, teknon (neuter in gender), occurs some 19 times in the NT. When gender can not be derived from the passage, the KJV correctly translates it as "child" in Mat. 10:21 (the synoptic parallel of the passage in question), Luke 1:7, Acts 7:5, Rev. 12:4, 5 (v. 5 is about a "man child" which would be akward as "man son").

However, at other times, the KJV (and other versions) use a little 'dynamic equivalence' and translate it as "son" in verses where gender can be deduced from the immediate context. Here are the occurrences and the males to whom they refer from the context:

Mat. 21:28, teknon refers to one of the "two sons" mentioned in the same verse.

Mark 2:5, teknon is the paralytic man who was lowered through the roof.

Mark 13:12, Passage in question.

Luke 2:48, teknon is Jesus at the temple as a child.

Luke 15:31, teknon is the prodigal son.

Luke 16:25, teknon is the rich man in hell.

1 Cor. 4:17, Phil. 2:22, 1 Tim. 1:2, 1 Tim. 1:18, 2 Tim. 1:2, 2 Tim. 2:1, teknon refers to Timothy in all of these passages.

Titus 1:4, teknon refers to Titus.

Philemon 10, teknon refers to Onesimus.

The KJV does it right 5 times, can be given credit for dynamic equivalence 13 times, and 1 time arbitrarily decides to translate teknon as "son" in Mark 13:12. Why does the KJV assign gender to a neuter term here? It can't be deduced from the context. It could be daughters as well.

You replied with "that was the common practice in 1611" (i.e., to refer to neuter groups/individuals as the masculine).

If that was the case, why did they translate the synoptic parallel of this verse correctly as "child" in Mat. 10:21?

The answer is simple: it is a mistranslation. The KJV uses an unequivalent (male) term to translate a (neuter) Greek word that has an (neuter) equivalent in English. The KJV assigns gender where none exists or can be derived from the context.

Nit-picky? Yes. Mistranslation? Yes.

Proving an error that does exist,

[ May 08, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

[DocCas]

Asked and answered. Just because you cannot accept the answer does not mean it was not adequately answered.

Why you ModernVersionOnly radicals want to be so picky about the KJV but criticize the KJVOs for being equally picky about the MVs word choices seems to me to be a great hypocrisy.

 

[TJ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blade:
Dr. Cassidy,

The answer is simple: it is a mistranslation. Mistranslation? Yes.

[ May 08, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Blade,

I have a question for you. To claim that it is a mistranslation is to say that the AV translators were in error. Now, you have already proven that teknon could be translated as a masc. when context allows. My question: If a word can be translated either way, is it an error to do it one way over the other? You have made a pretty good case against the masc. translation, however, the context does allow room for such a translation. You cannot prove that the translation is inaccurate. Also, for those of us who uphold the KJV as the inspired Word of God, it is easy to say that this is the translation which the Lord wants in the English version. The Doctrine of Preservation ensures the proper translation by the AV scholars. Since this cannot be proven to be in error, we will continue to accept it the same way you accept the passing down of the Greek and English manuscripts from which you quote...by faith.

Therefore I stand with Dr. Cassidy, that you have not PROVEN the AV to be in ERROR, including in this passage.

 

[Blade]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Asked and answered. Just because you cannot accept the answer does not mean it was not adequately answered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you didn't answer it. You did, however, post 5 replies to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Reply #1:
This is more a function of the vagaries of English grammar than a mistake of translation. In English, when gender is in doubt or unknown, the masculine is the accepted gender. We have gotten away from that in the past couple of centuries, but it was very common in the 17th century.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy it now. If that was "a function of English vagaries," then why do they translate the [virtually] identical passage in Mat. 10:21 correctly with "child." Certainly they would conserve rules of English grammar for translation of the same Greek in a parallel passage.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Post #2
I appreciate your attempt to prove the KJV wrong in its translation of "teknon" as "son" but, I fear you may have missed a few obvious passages that support my assertion. See Matthew 9.2; 21.28; Mark 2.5; Luke 2:48; 15.31; 16.25; 1Cor 4:17; Philippians 2.22; 1 Timothy 1.2; 1.18; 2 Timothy 1.2; 2.1; Titus 1.4; Philemon 10...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I answered each of those passages and showed that there was a male object in every passage you listed. Still, there is no male listed in Mark 13:12. You only showed that they engaged in 'dynamic equivalence' (which you correctly pointed out MVs do as well) when the context permitted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Post #3-4
Thank you for finally agreeing with me. That is what I said in my original post. The gender in English is refered to in the masculine when gender is unknown or in doubt. The gender of "teknon" is unknown or indoubt, therefore the KJV translators cannot have erred in assigning masculine gender according to the prevailing rules of English grammar...Now, if you really want to obsess over an error of gender in a bible, check out Romans 8.16 in the NIV. "Pneuma" is clearly neuter as is the pronoun, but, oh oh! The NIV changes the neuter Greek pronoun to the masculine English pronoun "Himself!"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, they weren't the prevailing rules of grammar as you say; see again Mat. 10:21 where the exact passage is translated correctly.

Further, it may have been common to refer to plural neuter pronouns as masculine (as is common in Spanish and other languages), but I have never heard such of singular pronouns.

You then attempted to change the subject with another argument about pneuma, which was (at the time) irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Post #5
Okay Blade, have it your way. Every single bible translator who has ever worked on an English version has it wrong. You, and ONLY you have it right. Just a few more little tid bits of knowledge and you will have achieved omniscience!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps this is the answer I missed. (Hoping the sarcasm isn't lost here.) You did not answer the argument.

If you did, please kindly point out the answer or counter my response. I'll happily continue if you believe you have slain this dragon.

Sincerely,

[ May 08, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]